Not excessive force?

F350 · May 4, 2016

TFred said:
I am virtually certain that Wally World illegally profiles. I'm a middle-aged white male, and I have never been asked to show a receipt at Wally World. Of course, most of the people I do observe displaying their receipt seem to be responding to the fact that there is someone there to look at it, rather than any actual request to see it.. I just nod my head in their general direction, sometimes mumble something that could be hello or good bye, and never break stride.

TFred

Actually; I, a senior citizen of pale complexion have been asked to show receipts at Wally World on a couple occasions, both when leaving with a large item in a shopping cart. But then again in Wyoming there aren't a whole lot of other complexions around :lol:

Shortly after moving to Grand Junction CO I had a LP guy follow me around the store (OK I was OCing). He was easy to spot, decked out like some NY Chitty corp. executive's idea of what people "out west" dress like (cowboy hat, western cut shirt, leather vest, blue jeans & cowboy boots), followed me through the shoe (boot) dept, to hardware, to automotive so I headed to clothing, lost him behind a tall display, so I ducked down below the clothing racks and circled back behind him. I could see him standing on tip toes looking for me, so I walked up behind him, taped him on the shoulder, when he turned around I said "If you're looking for me I'll be over in sporting goods. By the way, you look ridiculous and you stand out like a sore thumb, try dressing like a regular person".

utbagpiper · May 4, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
A customer is not part of the business. Whose property is it? Once I pay for it its mine ... I can eat the receipt if I want to. Nor is there any law saying that they have to provide a receipt.

Whether customers are part of the business or not seems to be irrelevant.

What I think you're saying--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that the Libertarian response is that if the law allows you to refuse to show a receipt, then it matters not what policy the store has.

My mistake. I thought Libertarians were strictly respectful about a private property owner's right to set whatever terms (ie policies) for the use of his property that the owner wanted to. If the conditions were objectionable, the Libertarian would find someplace else with more agreeable conditions.

It has been a while since I was a Libertarian so I appreciate you updating me on current state-of-the-art Libertarian views.

Did I miss anything or get anything wrong?

Thanks

Charles

Grapeshot · May 4, 2016

The merchant's right ends where the customer's right begins. Sound familiar?

utbagpiper · May 4, 2016

Grapeshot said:
The merchant's right ends where the customer's right begins. Sound familiar?

Absolutely. The great question is always where that line actually is.

To be clear, I'm not faulting anyone who ignores or violates a store owner's private policy of checking (some number of) receipts as customers exit the store. If the law doesn't require customers to abide that policy, I think customers are free to ignore it.

Indeed, as I've made clear, I don't feel obliged to abide "No Gun" policies at Utah businesses or hospitals. In Utah, such policies at businesses (including hospitals) have no force of law. And our trespass laws set a pretty high bar for such locations to claim a customer/visitor engaged in the normal and expected conduct in such locations is "trespassing" simply because he is armed in contradiction of said policies.

It is just that certain members of the forum have been rather vocal and persistent in claiming that I am engaging in some great violation of private property rights for my choice to legally carry my self-defense firearm into businesses and hospitals in Utah that have policies against the possession of guns by private citizens.

It is fascinating to watch such persons not utter a peep of complaint at those who ignore receipt-check policies at private businesses. Ditto when you provide your rational for ignoring "No Gun" policies (when legal) in certain businesses.

It is enough to make me think that some folks are basing their attacks more on who is violating the policy than they are on any consistent principles.

I simply can't see any rational, logical, or principled difference between a "No Gun" policy that some folks think I must honor and a "Receipt Check" policy that apparently those same folks have no issues being violated.

I do see two material differences between a "No Gun" policy and a "Receipt Check" policy:

1-Being disarmed leaves me at increased risk of grave bodily harm while being asked to let a store employee check my receipt is no worse than a minor inconvenience.

2-Disarming me provides no material benefit to the store, while a receipt check may provide some protection against shop lifting.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what kind of "Yay, but..." response may be forthcoming from those who are persistently outraged at my ignoring of "No Gun" policies, but who have remained mute on your violations of such policies, and on those here who freely admit to not complying with "Receipt Check" policies.

Charles

davidmcbeth · May 4, 2016

utbagpiper said:
Whether customers are part of the business or not seems to be irrelevant.

What I think you're saying--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that the Libertarian response is that if the law allows you to refuse to show a receipt, then it matters not what policy the store has.

My mistake. I thought Libertarians were strictly respectful about a private property owner's right to set whatever terms (ie policies) for the use of his property that the owner wanted to. If the conditions were objectionable, the Libertarian would find someplace else with more agreeable conditions.

It has been a while since I was a Libertarian so I appreciate you updating me on current state-of-the-art Libertarian views.

Did I miss anything or get anything wrong?

Thanks

Charles

Its my property once I pay for it. Here's my conditions: I own it, don't ask me to prove it .. you have the burden to show I stole it.

A person asking to see a receipt? Clear that he has no evidence that I stole it. Want to call me a thief? Bad idea.

solus · May 4, 2016

utbagpiper said:
snipp...and on those here who freely admit to not complying with "Receipt Check" policies.

Charles

mate, is it getting tough to focus on the topic? charles, i must state, that your last rambling paranoid tirade about you being singled out and victimized by forum members for allegedly violating contractually agreed to property owner's rights segued into showing your purchase receipt was truly precious. and yet, didn't have a thing, absolutely nada, to do about anything.

whom have freely admitted to not complying with receipt check policies?

ipse

utbagpiper · May 4, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
Its my property once I pay for it. Here's my conditions: I own it, don't ask me to prove it .. you have the burden to show I stole it.

A person asking to see a receipt? Clear that he has no evidence that I stole it. Want to call me a thief? Bad idea.

This may be true.

My point is that it completely disregards what may be the stated or de facto and well known policy of any number of private businesses. It appears that your brand of Libertarian does not feel compelled to respect the private property rights of business owners who have such policies as part of granting you access to their property.

Charles

davidmcbeth · May 4, 2016

utbagpiper said:
This may be true.

My point is that it completely disregards what may be the stated or de facto and well known policy of any number of private businesses. It appears that your brand of Libertarian does not feel compelled to respect the private property rights of business owners who have such policies as part of granting you access to their property.

Charles

My policy is that I am not to be bothered with another person's policy. Which policy prevails?

utbagpiper · May 4, 2016

solus said:
(various rambling insults redacted)
didn't have a thing, absolutely nada, to do about anything

A nice variation on exactly what I predicted. "Yay, but..."

Your selective outrage is obvious

solus said:
whom have freely admitted to not complying with receipt check policies?

McBeth and Grapeshot in this thread have both either openly said, or strongly alluded to not complying with such polices. Grapeshot recently posted a fine explanation of his motives for and results from deliberately violating "No Gun" policies at some restaurants. A search of the forum will reveal past threads about receipt checkers at Walmart and yield others who have made very clear they do not abide such policies. Not a peep from you on any of these. Of course, I doubt you are foolish enough to poke Grapeshot the way you like to troll me.

Obviously, you have a personality issue far more than any adherence to principles.

Which reminds me to ask, do YOU strictly abide receipt check policies or requests when patronizing businesses?

Or is it only my ignoring of gun policies that you think is an affront to the private property rights of business owners?

Charles

utbagpiper · May 4, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
My policy is that I am not to be bothered with another person's policy. Which policy prevails?

I thought you were explaining to me the "Libertarian response" to a request to see a receipt. Now you seem to be retreating back to merely your personal policy.

Your personal policies are of no interest to me at all as I frankly suspect they are mostly bluster that are rarely carried out...just based on the totality of your posts.

If you claim to represent Libertarian views, that might be of interest as Libertarians tend to be guided by adherence to principles as opposed to just telling fish tales.

Charles

davidmcbeth · May 4, 2016

utbagpiper said:
I thought you were explaining to me the "Libertarian response" to a request to see a receipt. Now you seem to be retreating back to merely your personal policy.

Your personal policies are of no interest to me at all as I frankly suspect they are mostly bluster that are rarely carried out...just based on the totality of your posts.

If you claim to represent Libertarian views, that might be of interest as Libertarians tend to be guided by adherence to principles as opposed to just telling fish tales.

Charles

Logic is something you are lacking on this thread ... moving on

solus · May 5, 2016

utbagpiper said:
A nice variation on exactly what I predicted. "Yay, but..."

Your selective outrage is obvious

McBeth and Grapeshot in this thread have both either openly said, or strongly alluded to not complying with such polices. Grapeshot recently posted a fine explanation of his motives for and results from deliberately violating "No Gun" policies at some restaurants. A search of the forum will reveal past threads about receipt checkers at Walmart and yield others who have made very clear they do not abide such policies. Not a peep from you on any of these. Of course, I doubt you are foolish enough to poke Grapeshot the way you like to troll me.

Obviously, you have a personality issue far more than any adherence to principles.

Which reminds me to ask, do YOU strictly abide receipt check policies or requests when patronizing businesses?

Or is it only my ignoring of gun policies that you think is an affront to the private property rights of business owners?

Charles

careful now mate, as your interpretation of what was posted regarding showing receipts is horribly skewed and maligning other member's information.

to clarify, Walmart does not have any sort of contractual requirement to proffer receipts upon exiting the store but COSTCO or SAMs does.

now regarding your term of 'ignoring' COSTCO's policies by 'sloppily' CC'g in their membership only stores...

take care of yourself charles as the traits espoused previously are becoming more obvious and others are noticing...

ipse

1245A Defender · May 5, 2016

Wowwie!!!!

utbagpiper said:
Absolutely. The great question is always where that line actually is.

To be clear, I'm not faulting anyone who ignores or violates a store owner's private policy of checking (some number of) receipts as customers exit the store. If the law doesn't require customers to abide that policy, I think customers are free to ignore it.

Indeed, as I've made clear, I don't feel obliged to abide "No Gun" policies at Utah businesses or hospitals. In Utah, such policies at businesses (including hospitals) have no force of law. And our trespass laws set a pretty high bar for such locations to claim a customer/visitor engaged in the normal and expected conduct in such locations is "trespassing" simply because he is armed in contradiction of said policies.

It is just that certain members of the forum have been rather vocal and persistent in claiming that I am engaging in some great violation of private property rights for my choice to legally carry my self-defense firearm into businesses and hospitals in Utah that have policies against the possession of guns by private citizens.

It is fascinating to watch such persons not utter a peep of complaint at those who ignore receipt-check policies at private businesses. Ditto when you provide your rational for ignoring "No Gun" policies (when legal) in certain businesses.

It is enough to make me think that some folks are basing their attacks more on who is violating the policy than they are on any consistent principles.

I simply can't see any rational, logical, or principled difference between a "No Gun" policy that some folks think I must honor and a "Receipt Check" policy that apparently those same folks have no issues being violated.

I do see two material differences between a "No Gun" policy and a "Receipt Check" policy:

1-Being disarmed leaves me at increased risk of grave bodily harm while being asked to let a store employee check my receipt is no worse than a minor inconvenience.

2-Disarming me provides no material benefit to the store, while a receipt check may provide some protection against shop lifting.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what kind of "Yay, but..." response may be forthcoming from those who are persistently outraged at my ignoring of "No Gun" policies, but who have remained mute on your violations of such policies, and on those here who freely admit to not complying with "Receipt Check" policies.

Charles

Charles;;; I am sooo tired,,, sooo I say,, Too long, did'nt read!!
You talk too much,,
You type too much!
You have too much to say, but
Soooo little for me to learn.

Thank you for your participation...

I won't put you on ignore,,, but so much more now, than ever,,, I Will Ignore your posts!

Thank you Charles... Bob

OC for ME · May 5, 2016

A request to checking my receipt is a implied accusation that I have committed larceny. I do not show receipts. I do not take to kindly being accused of thievery.

Waiting on a reply regarding my inquiry into MO's statute for LPOs.

color of law · May 5, 2016

I don't show the receipt if asked. It's not my problem if they can't set-up the the store to limit shoplifting.

Wolf_shadow · May 5, 2016

Deteriation of thread

This thread started as a discussion of excessive use of force, and dropped into an argument about store policies. What does showing a receipt on request or CCing into a store that doesn't want you too, have to do with excessive force?
Return to the topic or lock the thread!

solus · May 5, 2016

one hopes the aged ones remember that OC'g 'guests' are, where allowed by law, to enter and carry w/o harassment...

ipse

Grapeshot · May 5, 2016

Wolf_shadow said:
This thread started as a discussion of excessive use of force, and dropped into an argument about store policies. What does showing a receipt on request or CCing into a store that doesn't want you too, have to do with excessive force?
Return to the topic or lock the thread!

Astute observation and good advice.

SFCRetired · May 5, 2016

Where there is a contractual obligation to show a receipt, such as SAMS, I'll show it. Any other place, where there is no such obligation, I won't.

As concerns either OC or CC where it is the store's policy to ban weapons, I simply don't give them my money. Does it hurt them? I don't know, but my safety is more important to me than adhering to their rather naive policies.

The law in the case of the alleged shoplifter appears (IANAL) to be on the side of Home Depot and their loss prevention person. I'd like to know how her hearing turned out.

user · May 7, 2016

solus said:
OC, they have Qualified Immunity...they do not have to be careful...this is what caused me to throw up in the corner. of the round room..yet JQPublic has no such statutory protection.

ipse

No, they don't have qualified immunity - they have what purports to be an exemption from civil suit - only exemptions from lawsuits don't work, because you can only assert your exemption within the context of the suit. So what this statute provides, in effect, is an affirmative defense. So if they tackle me on the way out of the store and I file suit against them for false arrest, false imprisonment, and battery, they've got to file a plea in bar which they can back up with an evidentiary hearing in order to get out of the suit. And what they'd have to show is why they had probable cause - the same level of standard that applies to cops. Not a hunch, not a suspicion, not a really good guess, not an inference. Actual knowledge of objective facts which show that the plaintiff was engaged in concealment of merchandise or theft. Otherwise, it's a false arrest. One always has an absolute right to challenge a false arrest by use of force if necessary, to the degree sufficient to resist the arrest. If Joe Wannabee tackles Innocent Shopper and Shopper fights back, all she's doing is resisting an attacker, same as in a mugging - Wannabee has no special status unless he's actually right. Then, of course, if he is actually right (e.g., the security pictures show Shopper's not really innocent because she spent twenty minutes stashing lipstick into her coat pockets), then Shopper's having fought back will be the subject of other charges against her.

Btw, Grapeshot's correct - it's "merchandise" before you pay for it, and after you pay for it, it's "personal property". And here's another little-known fact: larceny is a crime against possession, not ownership. So once you put your "merchandise" in your shopping cart, and someone else takes it out, that person has committed both a crime and a tort, even though you haven't yet paid for it.

Not excessive force?

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Activist Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate